[stryker]

The ultimate aim of socialism is the abolition of the state by reaching the stage of communism, when the state withers away to a mere administrative body, there being so much surplus production and so little class distinction that no organized force is necessary and therefore no state in the classical sense. Fascism on the other hand, raises the state, as the epitome of the character of its' people to the level of a God, to be worshipped, as was Hitler in his role as the Fuhrer, or leader. The state is associated with various religious symbols that take on mystical proportions such as the swastika and the devil’s head of the SS. Class distinctions are not only maintained, but are emphasized to the point of open classism and racism. To understand the difference you must go back to the writings of Edmund Burke and start with an understanding of the difference between classical conservativism and classical liberalism (Locke and Rousseau). You can argue all you want, but walk into any university in the United States and ask any professor of political philosophy whether German national socialism was in any way socialism and leftist and you will hear the same answer I am giving you.

As an aside, I do not think the traditional left/right political spectrum has much use in the modern world since no country has ever passed from socialism into communism to see the state dissolve, but rather we have found that both ends of the political spectrum end in human enslavement. I therefore find myself a libertarian, struggling against the drug warriors on the right and the politically correct nanny state advocates on the other.

[freeforall]

Again you give me superficial differences.The principle of socialism or nazism is collective sacrifice to the goals of those in charge.The Nazis defined themselves as socialists.Goebbels said "To be a good socialist,is to submit the I to the thou:socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole"

Not so different than this by Ludwig Von Mises in 1922 the book "Socialism"

CHAPTER 9 The Position of the Individual Under Socialism 1 Selection of Personnel and Choice of Occupation The Socialist Community is a great authoritarian association in which orders are issued and obeyed. This is what is implied by the words "planned economy" and the "abolition of the anarchy of production." The inner structure of a socialist community is best understood if we compare it with the inner structure of an army. Many socialists indeed prefer to speak of the "army of labour." As in an army, so under Socialism, everything depends on the orders of the supreme authority. Everyone has a place to which he is appointed. Everyone has to remain in his place until he is moved to another. It follows that men become pawns of official action. They rise only when they are promoted. They sink only when they are degraded. It would be waste of time to describe such conditions. They are the common knowledge of every citizen of a bureaucratic state.

II.9.1 It is obvious that, in a state of this sort, all appointments should be based upon personal capacity. Each position should be held by the individual best fitted to hold it—always provided that he is not required for more important work elsewhere. Such is the fundamental principle of all systematically ordered authoritarian organizations—of the Chinese Mandarinate equally with modern bureaucracies.

II.9.2 In giving effect to this principle the first problem that arises is the appointment of the supreme authority. There are two ways to the solution of this problem, the oligarchical-monarchical and the democratic, but there can be only one solution—the charismatic solution. The supreme rulers (or ruler) are chosen in virtue of the grace with which they are endowed by divine dispensation. They have superhuman powers and capacities lifting them above the other mortals.

Obviously Von Mises saw what would be the results of Socialism.Whether it be so called Left or Right.Yes I agree their is a difference between classic Liberalism and Conservatism.Locke is perhaps IMHO the most important political philosipher.

"As an aside, I do not think the traditional left/right political spectrum has much use in the modern world since no country has ever passed from socialism into communism to see the state dissolve, but rather we have found that both ends of the political spectrum end in human enslavement. I therefore find myself a libertarian, struggling against the drug warriors on the right and the politically correct nanny state advocates on the other."

I also call myself a friend of liberty.